During my recent visit to the Stockholm District Court, I had the opportunity to observe a trial concerning the purchase of “sexual services.” The experience evoked many thoughts and emotions, not only about the crimes but also about society’s perception and the court’s handling of the case.
The man on trial is in his 30s and looks like anyone else. During the proceedings, he appears indifferent and does not even react when the chats about paid assaults are read aloud. Evidence shows that he purchased “sex” eleven times over six months—committing paid assaults once or twice a month. He answers the prosecutor’s questions briefly and admits to the crime.
The court has summoned two witnesses, both women whom the man purchased sexual services from. I was surprised that the women were not considered plaintiffs. As witnesses, they do not have access to legal counsel, victim compensation, or other crucial support services for crime victims, which could be essential in helping them leave their vulnerable situations. This raises questions about the message it sends and whether it aligns with the Swedish sex purchase law. If every exploited individual were given plaintiff status, it would make it clear that courts and society take the crime seriously by recognizing that the perpetrator is not only committing an offense against the state but also against an individual who should be offered support, assistance, and exit programs.
The defense attorney presents circumstances that are meant to mitigate the accused’s responsibility. It is emphasized that the man allegedly did not know that purchasing sexual services is illegal, which seems like a weak argument. In Sweden, it is an individual’s duty and personal responsibility to know what is against the law, and ignorance should not be considered a valid excuse. The prosecutor requests a four-month prison sentence, and the man is visibly uncomfortable.
Two weeks later, the Stockholm District Court delivers its verdict. The man is convicted of eleven counts of purchasing sexual services, and the sentence is probation, as it is determined that supervision is necessary. This means that for three years, he must comply with conditions and support himself to the best of his ability. Despite the 2022 sentencing reform that raised the minimum penalty from fines to imprisonment, the court states that there are no grounds for imposing a prison sentence. The verdict reads:
“Purchasing sexual services is not a crime of such a nature that imprisonment must be chosen as the penalty. Nor does the overall severity of the offenses indicate that imprisonment should be selected. [Name] appears in six entries in the criminal record, but these do not influence the sentencing decision in this case. Against this background, there are no grounds to sentence [Name] to imprisonment.”
The man is also required to pay a 1,000 SEK fee to the Crime Victims Fund, which is less than what he spent on a single assault. It seems almost ironic that he must contribute to a victim support fund while the women he assaulted are not granted victim status.
In 2016, France introduced a law similar to Sweden’s sex purchase law. However, what France has succeeded in implementing is a requirement that convicted offenders must attend one-day courses about the consequences of their actions, primarily to educate them on why France has a sex purchase law. An evaluation showed that 80 percent of those who attended the course considered stopping their purchase of sex. Exploitation and human trafficking are driven by demand. If Sweden introduced a similar course, it could impact future demand and reinforce the seriousness of the crime. Such low-threshold initiatives are needed in Sweden as a complement to counseling services at Kast. Read more at the campaign site sexuellexploatering.se.
Louise, intern at RealStars
